Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010268762025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3947/2025 SHRI TH BIDYADHAN SINGHA SON OF LATE KHERO BABU SINGHA,AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,RESIDENT OF -BINAKANDI PART-I,POST OFFICE-BINAKANDI GHA,DISTRICT- CACHAR,ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TOTHE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,DISPUR,ASSAM. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR ASSAM. 3:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS C.D.C. CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B SARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., Page No.# 2/4 Linked Case : WP(C)/6637/2021 TH. BIDYADHAN SINGHA S/O. LT. KHERO BABU SINGHA R/O. BINAKANDI PART-I P.O. BINAKANDI GHAT DIST. CACHAR ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. DISPUR ASSAM. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. DISPUR ASSAM. 3:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT. KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM. 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS C.D.C. CACHAR ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MS. B SARMA Advocate for : SC SEC. EDU. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 15.12.2025 Heard Ms Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. U Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking correction of the order dated 14.08.2023 passed in W.P(C) No. 6637/2021. It is submitted that this Court by order dated 14.08.2023 disposing of the writ petition had directed inter alia that if all the relevant documents as called for from the office of the Director of Secondary Education are found in order, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education will pass necessary order giving regularization to the petitioner from the date the petitioner was adjusted against the sanctioned post i.e. from 01.03.1980. The learned counsel for the petitioner by way of the interlocutory application submits that the date of adjustment of the petitioner ought to have been 26.10.1989 and not 01.03.1980 as recorded in the order. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that a communication dated 26.10.2025 issued by the Department of School Education also supports the contention of the petitioner. The said communication is enclosed to Annexure–B of the interlocutory application. She submits that there is no dispute in this regard. At the time when the writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 14.08.2023, the relevant documents to show that the period of adjustment of the writ petitioner against the sanctioned post will be from 26.10.1989 was available in the writ petition, However, by oversight perhaps this was not referred to and accordingly, Page No.# 4/4 the Court came to dispose of the writ petition recording 01.03.1980 as a date for adjustment of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the prayer made. In that view of the matter, this interlocutory application stands allowed. It is ordered that the date from which the petitioner was adjusted against the sanctioned post should be read as 26.10.1989 instead of 01.03.1980 as referred to in the order dated 14.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6637/2021. The same stands corrected and the interlocutory application accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. This order shall be read along with the order dated 14.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6637/2021. JUDGE Comparing Assistant